Slashdot Mirror


DARPA Grand Challenge Updates

GraffitiKnight writes "After only 1 team managed to successfully navigate the DARPA Qualifying course, DARPA has rewritten the rules to let almost everyone compete. Wired has the story, which also mentions rumors that the race will run to 150 miles, much less than the original plans of 210 - 300 miles." Here is some earlier Slashdot coverage of the race.

24 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Man, I can't wait for the 8th version of this race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hear that it will be the machines hunting a prisoner or something over a 150 mile course.

  2. This demonstrates.. by GearheadX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..that there's something wrong with DARPA's mentality.

    You don't accept substandard results if nobody can produce. This is something you intend to throw massive money on eventually, you'd want the would-be contractors to put up or shut up real quick.

    1. Re:This demonstrates.. by metlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But if DARPA pulled out because of substandard results, they run the risk of being bad-mouthed, and perhaps even losing cred.

      And the next time around they conduct something like this, not too many people would be willing to compete.

      However, this lets DARPA see more entries - agreed, some crappy ones - but a lot of good ones which are good but would have otherwise not made it. Besides, its really too early to say anything, so lets see.

    2. Re:This demonstrates.. by nacturation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't accept substandard results if nobody can produce. This is something you intend to throw massive money on eventually, you'd want the would-be contractors to put up or shut up real quick.

      Then again, this is very very early in development for all teams involved. Should they cancel the event or only have one team competing? Kinda ruins the whole purpose. DARPA set an ambitious goal and, seeing that the technology wasn't quite there yet, revised the goal. Nothing wrong with that. It encourages people to participate and, by allowing more teams to actually get involved with the competition, mistakes will be made, they will learn what not to do, and the science will advance.

      Remember, they're not ordering a few billion dollars worth of equipment yet. This is mostly a proof-of-concept event to foster investment from outside parties. Start small, encourage teams to make advancements, then hold a more challenging event in a year or two. Seems like a good way to do it to me.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:This demonstrates.. by bmongar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not so sure letting them compete is such a crime. It's not like they have agreed to a multimillion dollar contract with some company that can't produce. If the designs suck they won't win, no money out of DARPA's pocket.
      However a poorly designed bot can have a desing feature that if developed by the right people would be usefull. This lets DARPA see how some of these potential inovations will perform.

      --
      As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
  3. Frank Dellaert was right by ayatollah+jones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the Previous Story

    Quoting Frank Dellaert, co-director of Georgia Tech's robotics lab from the article, 'I would have trouble driving some of these roads myself. I think it's beyond the capabilities of autonomous vehicles today.'

    I guess he was right after all...

  4. how fun would it be to watch a 1 team race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I was the one team racing unless there was a time restriction I'd go Mars rover slow.

    No sense taking risks when there are no competition.

    1. Re:how fun would it be to watch a 1 team race? by toltas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this was the whole idea, DARPA wants to make sure they have some kind of "race" on their hands, not just one team putting along till the end.

      The Carnegie Mellon entry looks to be functioning properly at low speeds, but has had some problems staying up at higher speeds.

      I think at least having more teams will force the CM team to actually make this a race instead of a walk.

  5. Not all cases are as clear-cut... by kevinatilusa · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...as the article makes them out to be.

    All the Wired article states about the Caltech and Ohio State teams is that "The squads from Caltech and Ohio State University were also allowed in, even though their drones did not complete the obstacle course. "

    From the Caltech team site: "Bob completed the test route flawlessly until the last few feet. He was stopped by DARPA officials seven feet away from the final obstacle -- although had he been allowed to continue, he may have stopped himself in time..."

    Seems close enough to me.

    1. Re:Not all cases are as clear-cut... by SiliconEntity · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Wired article was written on Tuesday night; the Caltech and Ohio State teams went ahead and qualified on Wednesday. At the time Wired was writing, it was correct that only one team had qualified. As of last night, three teams have done so. See the DARPA media page for updates on who has made it so far.

      The Wired article also speculates that even teams which don't complete the qualifier will be allowed to try the race, but I haven't seen any confirmation of that on the DARPA site. Of course, if a robot can't make it through a one mile practice track, it's unlikely to get across 150 miles of desert. But letting them try would make for a more exciting race day.

  6. See, this proves the Challenge was a good idea! by metrazol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DARPA put up a $1,000,000 cold hard cash for an autonomous vehicle and they got dozens of shoddy immitations that couldn't even navigate the test course.

    Normally they have to pay a defense contractor BILLIONS to get something that doesn't work.

    They saved loads of money, and they don't have to pay until it works, unlike, oh, other DoD projects, like the Osprey, Comanche, Patriot, TW Missile Defense, etc.

    --
    "Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
    1. Re:See, this proves the Challenge was a good idea! by metrazol · · Score: 4, Funny

      Theater Wide Missile Defense, has a fancier name. Basically a mobile (naval at the moment) ballistic missile defense system that can protect an entire theater of war.

      Example: Park a couple of cruisers in the Persian Gulf, no more Scud threat. Problem is, well, it "works" if, as someone else mentioned, the target has a "big neon sign on it saying 'Hit Me'"

      The Patriot does work...it shoots down allied planes very, very well. Enemy missiles..well...sometimes. I mean, hitting 50% of missiles incoming, now that's HUGE. But shooting down allied planes before the operator can go, "NO WAIT STOP! ESC! ESC! Crtl-Alt-Del!" that's not so good.

      The Comanche worked, 10 years and $8,000,000,000 in. The Osprey works, assuming you take care of the things, which they didn't, and what "working" for an Osprey means is a little fuzzy. Works as in "Takes off and lands" or works as in "Replaces Blackhawks and Chinooks as a troop transport." The DoD and DARPA have a few major screw ups that cost billions of dollars, look at Star Wars, a lot of the new luggage screening tools, and some of their more novel toys as an example. DARPA of course, has an excuse, since they do research and not everything is even supposed to work, just prove a concept, test an idea, or do something new, even if not useful.

      DoD on the other hand? They have no excuse. They build things that don't work all the time, but they aren't doing research. They're in the business of doing damage, and not to their own employees and soldiers.

      --
      "Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
  7. You know what they say... by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    When at first you don't succeed - lower your standards!

    I'm sure if every project follows this model of diminishing goals, morale will be at all time high and productivity will skyrocket! I mean, failure is a terrible thing and nobody should be forced to cope with it and try to do better. Trying is hard!

    Hey, it works for the public education system, right?

    ...right?

    Screw it. If one team qualifies, one team takes the challenge. Chances are they're a shoe-in anyway considering they've already proven themselves more capable.

    To all those that failed: Better luck next year, guys!
    =Smidge=

  8. Lowered Expectations by IAmTheDave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I can't say this is a good thing. If only one qualified, then the rest need to go back to the drawing board.

    It's the same in any situation. If you lower your expectations, you'll get a lesser product/whatever. If it can't make it 200 miles, then it isn't worthy of being in the race.

    My 2 cents, anywho...

    --
    Excuse my speling.
    Making The Bar Project
  9. Funny [Ironic] Stab at DARPA by auburnate · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think its funny [ironic] that DARPA added chlorine to the talent pool initially, thus eliminating many would be contestants, and now they are faced with so few "eligible" entrants. Maybe they should go back, apologize to some of the "out of the home garage" participants, and invite them to replace the a few of the multi-million dollar corporate-sponsored failures. All this from a humble robot loving gEEk.

    -- You can't spell geek without a EE.

  10. Re:If I was that one team... by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's only a qualifying round.

    Look at it this way - it's more fun to watch them fail in your dust behind you as you streak past them into the distance than it is to race alone.

    After all, if they couldn't qualify, but are allowed to race anyway, what chance do they have of beating the better designs ? Very little.

  11. 4 Teams are now qualified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Darpa put out a press release yesterday after
    the Wired article. Three more teams have qualified:

    SciAutonics II, Team Cal Tech, and Virginia Tech

    See: http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/media_news.htm

  12. I think this article is out of date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Notice its dated 10 AM yesterday.

    The Virginia Tech team at least claims on its website that they completed the qualifying course.

    http://www.me.vt.edu/grandchallenge/

  13. More than one team has passed the QID by Pepsiman · · Score: 5, Informative
    From qid_results3.pdf:

    The results of the attempts of today's group break down as follows:

    • SciAutonics II, Team Cal Tech and Virginia Tech completed the course.
    • Team CIMAR , Team ENSCO, TerraMax nearly completed the course.
    • Axion Racing, Digital Auto Drive, The Golem Group, Palos Verdes High School, Team CajunBot, TerraHawk partially completed the course.
    • The Blue Team, Rover Systems, SciAutonics I and Team Phantasm terminated their attempts.
  14. Business as usual by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You don't accept substandard results if nobody can produce. This is something you intend to throw massive money on eventually, you'd want the would-be contractors to put up or shut up real quick.

    You mean like the 'Star Wars" Missile Defense System which has failed numerous tests of increasing ease, but is being used anyway because "it beats nothing", except that "nothing" doesn't violate treaties we signed, creates a false sense of security, doesn't motivate anyone to 'get it right' and wastes trillions of dollars.

    Or the Patriot Defense System, which routinely targeted friendly aircraft during development, failed miserably the first time it was put into use(for a use it was never intended- it's never been used for what it was originally designed for, shooting down planes) and then 10+ years later was used again and resulted in the deaths of dozens of UK soldiers because it couldn't tell the difference between a helicopter traveling at less than 100 kt and an enemy missile traveling over the speed of sound?

    Or the Osprey tiltrotor, which suffered an astronomical failure rate and again, caused dozens of deaths of US marines?

    Then there's the Comanche helicopter, which they've been kicking around for years and finally decided, after spending billions, to just say "oh well, so much for that"?

    The defense department is famous for bidding scandals(if contracts are put out to bid at all), and being happy to look the other way and fudge the requirements(or ignore them completely) if the system fails to meet original requirements.

    Curiously, the russians never quite had such problems. Their fighter jets, for example, don't require pristine runways and constant maintenance; they're built like tanks, because the people who designed them knew they'd be held responsible if it failed unreasonably...and responsible doesn't mean "loose their job", it means "end up in Siberia" or "in a river with a bullet through your brain".

    This country needs three things. First, a true capitalist system for defense contractors. You want to sell the Army a tank? Fine. You can do so all on your own, without a single fucking dime, and then try and sell it. If it can't compete, too bad, your company goes under- that's the way capitalism works. Second, defense contractors need to be held responsible for when their products fail. Refunds for starters, contracts that can be invalidated on failure, civil/criminal punishments for gross design/construction failures. Third, absolutely, positively, no secret budgets of any kind. I am entirely pissed off with the pentagon filling up with all the kids who had secret treehouse clubs when they were kids and want to do the same shit now that they're 40.

    1. Re:Business as usual by LordHunter317 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or the Patriot Defense System, which routinely targeted friendly aircraft during development, failed miserably the first time it was put into use(for a use it was never intended- it's never been used for what it was originally designed for, shooting down planes) and then 10+ years later was used again and resulted in the deaths of dozens of UK soldiers because it couldn't tell the difference between a helicopter traveling at less than 100 kt and an enemy missile traveling over the speed of sound?
      Don't blame the technology when its being used in perverted ways. You yourself said that is meant for shooting down planes. It should not have shocked anyone when they tried to use it for something else and it didn't work.

      The defense department is famous for bidding scandals(if contracts are put out to bid at all), and being happy to look the other way and fudge the requirements(or ignore them completely) if the system fails to meet original requirements.
      I'd like you to name a bidding scandal then. Also, requirements are usually dropped because they were pointless in teh first place or just plain wrong. Valid requirements are rarely relaxed. Remember, requirements documents are written by committe. What sounds good on paper frequently doesn't work in real life. Anyone who's spent even a day on a goverment contract knows this.


      This country needs three things. First, a true capitalist system for defense contractors. You want to sell the Army a tank? Fine. You can do so all on your own, without a single fucking dime, and then try and sell it. If it can't compete, too bad, your company goes under- that's the way capitalism works.
      That's completely impractical. It costs too much to design a tank -- only about 3 or 4 companies in the United State could do it. Furthermore, the gov't doesn't want your tank, they want their tank. Most contracts work like this:

      • The goverment decides they want something
      • They hire someone to design it for them
      • They then pay someone to make it

      Its done this way on purpose, because the goverment likes to be in control.

      Second, defense contractors need to be held responsible for when their products fail. Refunds for starters, contracts that can be invalidated on failure, civil/criminal punishments for gross design/construction failures. Actually, they are held liable. There is this long whole process called testing, the contractor is liable until the item passes the tests. The gov't won't assume liability until it passes tests.

      Third, absolutely, positively, no secret budgets of any kind. I am entirely pissed off with the pentagon filling up with all the kids who had secret treehouse clubs when they were kids and want to do the same shit now that they're 40.
      The fact that you bring this up at all proves that you have no idea WTF you are talking about. People outside the defence community rarely understand the need for such paranoia or why we have it. But let me put it to you this way: how many security leaks do we have and have had in this country? The answer: not many. The reason: because the gov't takes security seriously, and understands it better to secure too much than secure too little.

  15. Very bad robots by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The Ohio State monster truck rammed a mini-van (picture) on Tuesday. On Wednesday, it was stopped before running down a course obstacle. And DARPA is letting them attempt the actual event?

    The QID was pathetic. We spent two days watching vehicles move around at 1MPH and hit big, obvious obstacles. No way can most of those vehicles operate effectively offroad.

    The big design mistakes seem to be these:

    • Using a laser rangefinder aimed horizontally forward as primary obstacle detection. That doesn't work reliably on either dark or smooth objects. The black mini-van was both.
    • Using fixed line scanners. If you miss a data point, you're stuck. There's no way to take a second look.
    • Overreliance on vision. Computer vision in unstructured situations has a very poor track record.

    Only CMU is doing well. It's not the money, by the way. Their actual cash outlays are only about $300K to date. It's the body count and the fear. They have about fifty people on the project, a slavedriver boss, and the full backing of CMU. CMU has to do well; most of the Robotics Institute funding over the last three decades is from DARPA, and DARPA can turn that money off at any time.

    John Nagle
    Team Overbot

  16. Red Team can't really "win" in my opinion by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The Red Team is favored by everyone to win, but is it really winning? What they have done is constructed an amazingly accurate and detailed map of every last bit of topography, down to the size of a big rock, of the region the race is going to be in. Their on-board sensors and navigation equipment doesn't have to do much sensing and navigation at all; they will get a foot-by-foot map of where they should be going. This doesn't strike me as "autonomous". It strikes me as just another version of remote control. Their victory will be an impressive technical feat but it certainly isn't the same as having a vehicle that you can plop down on unknown rugged terrain (be it a war zone or the surface of Mars) and have it get around on its own.

    I will be more impressed if the autonomous motorcycle makes it ten miles than I will be for Red Team to win the whole thing, because at least this bike is fully autonomous and has some radical new ideas going into it, instead of just tons of resources and brute-force mapping.

    ----------
    Host your WAP site, automatically

    1. Re:Red Team can't really "win" in my opinion by feelyoda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, there is certainly is misunderstanding of what it takes to do this.

      A "negative obstacle", i.e. a hole, 1/2 meter deep could very easily be missed by the map. This would cause most cars to crash, and is very hard for even humans to detect.

      This is one example of dozens of things you MUST perceive in real time. To say that the Red Team isn't really autonomous is insane, and you have little appreciation for 1) their action setup, 2) how hard the problem is.

      Besides, humans most certainly have some sort of impressive map making capabilities that let you find the bathroom with no lights on. That is no small feat.

      Look around redteamracing.org a bit more to learn what they are actually doing before letting your jealousy get in the way of your head. (Also note that the motorcycle is ridiculous. Since when is it easier to keep a two-wheeled machine stable under off-road conditions than a hummer? They have engineered their own failing...

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!